MEALEY’S® LITIGATION REPORT Insurance A Statistical Analysis Of Insurance Law Decisions By New York’s Highest Court by Evan H. Krinick Rivkin Radler LLP Uniondale, NY A commentary article reprinted from the January 13, 2021 issue of Mealey’s Litigation Report: Insurance MEALEY’S® LITIGATION REPORT: Insurance Vol. 35, #10 January 13, 2021 Commentary A Statistical Analysis Of Insurance Law Decisions By New York’s Highest Court by Evan H. Krinick [Editor’s Note: Evan H. Krinick, the managing part- But as much as the perceived inclination of the Court ner of Rivkin Radler LLP, has represented insurance to view the insurance industry favorably may influ- carriers in many significant cases. Mr. Krinick, who ence the attitude insurers hold toward the Court, served for two years as a law clerk to the Hon. Fritz W. perhaps just as important is the Court’s reputation for Alexander II of the New York Court of Appeals before fairness, understanding, and thoroughness in insur- joining Rivkin Radler, may be contacted at evan.krin- ance cases. Those characteristics, carriers recognize, [email protected]. Catalina E. De La Hoz, an associate apply even to the Court’s rulings against the insurance in the firm’s Commercial Litigation Practice Group industry. who previously served as a senior court attorney at the New York Court of Appeals, assisted in the preparation Starting in October 1995, I have written an annual of this article. Summer associates Jeffrey Ehrhardt and column for the New York Law Journal discussing the Nadia Udeshi assisted in the research for this article. most significant insurance law decisions issued by Any commentary or opinions do not reflect the opinions the New York Court of Appeals in the preceding of Rivkin Radler LLP or LexisNexis®, Mealey Publi- term, which generally begins in September and runs cations™. Copyright © 2021 by Rivkin Radler LLP. through June. These columns provide a comprehen- Responses are welcome.] sive list of the seminal insurance law decisions issued by the Court of Appeals since September 1994 and a New York’s highest court, the New York Court of substantial foundation to study the Court’s jurispru- Appeals, is one of the preeminent state courts in the dence over that time frame. country. It is widely – and justifiably – acclaimed for its well-reasoned, thoughtful, and leading decisions As will be seen below, these decisions demonstrate in numerous areas of the law. Its many significant that the New York Court of Appeals is now, and for at contributions to American jurisprudence include its least the past 25 years has been, a preeminent insur- opinions on insurance law. ance law court in the United States. The high regard in which the insurance industry The Basic Information and insurance counsel hold the New York Court of There were 187 insurance cases decided by the Court Appeals certainly reflects the Court’s reputation as a of Appeals throughout this 25 year timeframe. Out strong venue for insurance carriers in disputes with of the 187 cases, 161 involved disputes between policyholders. Indeed, carriers often insist on New insurance carriers and policyholders. Grouping the York law as the selected law in policies, arbitration 161 cases into five-year periods, one finds that each agreements, and settlement agreements, and there five-year period typically included 20 to 40 cases, have been many choice-of-law battles waged in courts with the most being 42 cases in the five-year period across the country where insurance carriers have from the 2000-2001 term through the 2004-2005 sought the application of New York law. term. 1 Vol. 35, #10 January 13, 2021 MEALEY’S® LITIGATION REPORT: Insurance The 25-year period included the partial tenure of number (46 cases) were from the Appellate Division, Chief Judge Judith Kaye, the complete tenure of Second Department. Far fewer cases were reviewed Chief Judge Jonathan Lippman, and the beginning of from the Appellate Division, Third Department (21 the tenure of Chief Judge Janet DiFiore. There have cases), and the Appellate Division, Fourth Depart- been 17 associate judges who served on the Court ment (23 cases). during this period, for various periods of time, and with overlapping tenures. The First Department had a somewhat higher per- centage of cases affirmed than the Second Depart- The overwhelming majority of the cases that reached ment. The First Department came in at 53.3 percent the Court of Appeals came from the four intermediate and the Second Department came in at 45.7 percent. appellate courts in New York known as the Appellate The Third Department had the highest affirmance Divisions – 170 of the 187 total cases were from the percentage, at 61.9 percent, and the Fourth Depart- Appellate Divisions. Just 17 cases came from either fed- ment had the lowest affirmance percentage, at 39.1 eral courts or from other state supreme courts pursuant percent. to the Court’s certification authority and procedures. Overall, the Court affirmed well over 50 percent of As to be expected, the types of insurance products that the coverage cases it heard. Broken down by insur- were reviewed were varied and comprehensive. By far, ance product, CGL cases had among the highest the two most prevalent insurance policies considered affirmance rate, at 64.5 percent, while auto policy by the Court were automobile insurance policies (in- disputes had an affirmance rate of 51.1 percent. The cluding the mandatory no-fault and supplementary volume of cases from other products was too small to underinsurance provisions) (50 cases) and the com- draw any conclusions, although the Court affirmed all mercial general liability (“CGL”) insurance policy of the excess policy cases it reviewed. (40 cases). Other coverages addressed to a far lesser extent included life (13 cases), disability (nine cases), Carrier versus Policyholder homeowners (nine cases), professional liability (nine Out of the 161 cases surveyed where the dispute was cases), excess (seven cases), and property (six cases). between a carrier and a policyholder, where there was a clear dispute between a carrier and a policyholder, The areas of dispute were predominately coverage is- and where there was a clear winner, carriers won 55 sues (insuring agreements and exclusions) (94 cases), percent of the cases and policyholders won 45 percent with a lesser focus on statutory claims (49 cases) and of the cases. Thus, carriers prevailed in a clear major- notice requirements (14 cases), among other things. ity of the cases, although perhaps not at quite the rate that a court with a pro-insurance industry reputation The New York Court of Appeals has long had a his- might suggest. tory as a court of consensus, and the statistics bear this out. Consider that, as noted above, the majority The results were largely consistent through the years, of the insurance cases over the past 25 years involved with carriers winning 54 percent of the time during a dispute between insurer and policyholder, and that Chief Judge Kaye’s tenure and 56 percent of the time the majority of those were decided unanimously – 86 during Chief Judge Lippman’s tenure. To date, carri- of 161, or approximately 54 percent. Three judge dis- ers have prevailed in 65 percent of the cases under the sents were relatively rare and occurred just 10 times. recent tenure of Chief Judge DiFiore, but the number Two judge dissents happened 27 times. In addition, of insurance cases is still relatively small. a dissent by one judge happened 38 times. Taken together, about 46 percent of the cases were decided The New York Court of Appeals is a certiorari court, without unanimity. and disputes reach the Court only if it grants permis- sion to appeal (or, in limited cases, when an Appellate The Results Division allows an appeal). Thus, the cases that get Percentage of Cases Affirmed to the Court of Appeals typically involve difficult Almost half the cases (80 cases) were from the Ap- issues of law – yet, at the Court of Appeals, carriers pellate Division, First Department, and a sizeable have won a clear majority of the lawsuits between 2 MEALEY’S® LITIGATION REPORT: Insurance Vol. 35, #10 January 13, 2021 carriers and policyholders, as noted above. Still, it is Court’s decisions, etc. – the New York Court of Ap- important to recognize the key role that the Appellate peals has demonstrated that it is a premier insurance Divisions play in establishing insurance law as the court. Insurance carriers, therefore, would do well to final appellate court in most instances. An analysis continue to seek out the Court, and New York law, of Appellate Division insurance cases is beyond the to resolve questions of insurance law today and in the scope of this article. years to come. Individual Judges Unlike the U.S. Supreme Court, where commenta- Endnotes tors seem to have little difficulty labeling justices as “liberal” or “conservative,” such distinctions have 1. The New York Court of Appeals has seven little applicability to the New York Court of Appeals. judges: the chief judge and six associate judges, So too, there is little empirical evidence to label any all of whom are appointed by the governor and judge on the Court of Appeals as “pro-carrier” or confirmed by the New York State Senate to 14 “pro-policyholder.” year terms. The data does reveal limited statistical evidence re- 2. No article was written for the 2009-2010 term garding individual judges. For example, in divided as there were insufficient cases. However, two cases won by carriers from 2009 to 2015, Chief cases from that term have been included in the Judge Lippman and Judge Eugene F. Pigott, Jr., database that forms the information for this had the most dissenting votes.